One-Issue Voting

G

gvf

Moderator
You people ever hear of voting for a candidate based on a broad range of domestic, economic and foreign positions they have? Instead of just what you consider gun attitudes you don't like or like?

Best way to get a lousy president. Everyone votes on their ISSUE.

I think I'll join the Ozone Group. And dump even the thought of anyone not corresponding completely to our Ozone attitudes: why have one of the Enemy as President for God's sake.
 
Well, there are issues other than gun issues by which to choose a president. But if a candidate doesn't support you on gun issues he/she is unlikely to be supportive of any other issue you feel strongly about. If you haven't already read it, I suggest the following:
Click to expand...

Not only is this not universally true, but for many people it's more often than not entirely false. I've found that in a majority of races, the pro-gun candidate (or more pro-gun candidate) is the one with which I disagree with on the majority of other issues.

Newsflash: not everybody is you, or maybe all your range buddies that agree with you.

Next time replace most of those instances of "you" with "me." [EDIT: or, you know, "I"...stupid grammar]
 
The second amendment is the most important because it's the one that lets us get the rest back if we need to.

What happens if things get so bad as to cause revolt, but there's nothing to revolt with because it was all taken away?
 
Not only is this not universally true, but for many people it's more often than not entirely false. I've found that in a majority of races, the pro-gun candidate (or more pro-gun candidate) is the one with which I disagree with on the majority of other issues.
Click to expand...
Precisely. During the last election I picked a Democrat with a "C" rating from the GOA over an "A" rated Republican because the guy was so wrong on another issue that I couldn't vote for him in good conscience.

It's easy for them, which is why they stamp their feet so loudly. Some of us actually have to make a hard choice in this regard. And as I've said before, at the end of the day I can still hide my guns.
 
The second amendment is the most important because it's the one that lets us get the rest back if we need to.

What happens if things get so bad as to cause revolt, but there's nothing to revolt with because it was all taken away?
Click to expand...

A majority of gun owners have shown they're willing to put up with a variety of infringements on other freedoms without a call to arms, so over the years I've become less than convinced by this argument.
 
Glad there's a broad examination of candidates from a number of these posts, refreshing. Guess the one-issuers are often the most vocal.
 
The second amendment is the most important because it's the one that lets us get the rest back if we need to.

What happens if things get so bad as to cause revolt, but there's nothing to revolt with because it was all taken away?
Click to expand...

What happens when most of the people who have the guns merely shrug their shoulders when all the other rights are taken, because "hey, at least they're not taking our guns"?

There is no "most important" amendment. They're all equally important. You can't revolt even with guns if the First Amendment is taken, and you have no way of communicating with like-minded people, for example.

Excuse my pessimism, but all the cheerleading of the Patriot Act from the gun-owning crowd didn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies over the last six years. What good are your guns if there's nothing left to defend with them...except your right to keep those guns?

As someone else pointed out, the Second is the only amendment that refers to tangible objects. I can hide my guns...I can't hide my freedom of speech, or my right to a jury trial.

But if a candidate doesn't support you on gun issues he/she is unlikely to be supportive of any other issue you feel strongly about.
Click to expand...

There are a ton of candidates who agree with me on the gun issue, but whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine on every other important issue.

A candidate's position on guns tells you nothing about his position on freedom in general--it just tells you that he likes guns. Most people have a favorite Amendment or two, and they usually also have an amendment or two they'd like to see gone.
 
"Guns" is important because it is NOT just about "one issue", it is about "rights" and about "the people", and about what the politician thinks about them. It takes just a few minutes to read the Constitution and the BoR, and - with the internet now, in about 1/2 an hour anyone who cares (and that's their job!) can find out what the framer's "real" intent was - i.e. exactly what the 2nd says. Anyone who mis-interprets the meaning of the 2nd is an idiot or a liar - and cannot be trusted...on any issue. Such politicians do not deserve our votes or our respect, cause they do not respect you, or your rights.
 
Fire Arms are not the only issue I vote on!:rolleyes: But the second Amendment is a very important one for me! Picture your self as England or Australia, You have so many days to turn them in? I have friends in both that have lost there rights! They both tell me stuff is no better and people just find other ways to kill who the want to ! Whats better a shooter killing a single person or a bomb killing 20-100 people to get to the target?
 
Beretta:


This is not a attack on you in any fassion! Why would you align with any factions that wish To Socialise and disarm you?
 
I look at it this way...

The 2nd Amendment is the least popular of our rights in the opinions of our elected congresscritters. If a candidate is willing to "buck the trend" of the political elite and support the 2nd Amendment, that's a serious plus.

But it's not worth much if that candidate isn't supportive of the entire Bill of Rights. The candidate should be supportive of ALL of our rights, not just some of them.

One of my favorite political quotes is:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Click to expand...

Some of you will recognize it, while others are too young. Any candidate wanting my vote should have a track record of defending and supporting ALL of our rights, not just the ones which are popular.

Candidates should also recognize that government works best when it governs least. Smaller government is better and government programs are not the solution to every problem, dispute or inequality.

-end rant-
 
Any candidate wanting my vote should have a track record of defending and supporting ALL of our rights, not just the ones which are popular.
Click to expand...

good luck with that...

if you can find someone that fits the bill,they wont have a snowballs chance....basically a "feel good vote".

i cant for the life of me understand how anyone can put themselves in either of the boxes we're given to choose from.

i honestly think im done with voting all together.

start writing letters on issue's i care about and giving money to the causes i support.

the "left and right",dem and rep...can both FO.

they just take turns screwing us from different angles.
 
the "left and right",dem and rep...can both FO.

they just take turns screwing us from different angles.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I can see where you're coming from. But there is always the option of using your vote strategically to semi-protest. Vote against incumbents. Try to vote such that different parties control different branches or chambers of legislatures. Basically pit them against each other, and maybe keep them from screwing you as hard. Or just consistently vote third party to increase their chances of receiving funding.

Just a thought. There's more than one way to use your vote.
 
2A issues are not the only ones considered when deciding my vote, but they are far and away the primary ones. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for a candidate who has demonstrated a proven disregard for them.
 
Colbert couldn't get on the ballot in South Carolina or whatever state he was trying for. It was on his show yesterday, along with a segment where he visited a gunshop, tried out lots of different firearms, and decided on what looked like a Stoner rifle. Anyone else see it?

I don't know if he is totally sunk as he wanted to run as a democrat and as a republican, but the democrats turned him down.

As for the single-issue issue, I take a pretty wide view when deciding anything political. I've only voted republican all the way down the ballot once, but I was living in Chicago at the time and opposed the Daley machine on so many different issues that I had no choice, really.
 
Colbert couldn't get on the ballot in South Carolina or whatever state he was trying for. It was on his show yesterday, along with a segment where he visited a gunshop, tried out lots of different firearms, and decided on what looked like a Stoner rifle. Anyone else see it?

I don't know if he is totally sunk as he wanted to run as a democrat and as a republican, but the democrats turned him down.
Click to expand...

It was SC. I didn't see the show, but I heard the news. I can understand where the SC Democrats were coming from...if he's only running in a single state, there's really no way he can conceivably win...at which point he's not a serious candidate.

If he were trying to get on the ballots in even like 10 or 15 states, he could probably have argued it...but as it is the joke is over. Part of me is sad, because I really would have liked to see what would happen when he ended up winning delegates to the convention (which I think he would have). On the other hand, as much as a joke as I think our system is in many ways, I'm not sure how comfortable I was with him directly making a mockery of it.

At least they're giving him his money back.

As for the single-issue issue, I take a pretty wide view when deciding anything political. I've only voted republican all the way down the ballot once, but I was living in Chicago at the time and opposed the Daley machine on so many different issues that I had no choice, really.
Click to expand...

I've yet to vote straight ticket...then again, I've never lived in any of the urban areas known for their political machines, either. I'd certainly say it's not necessarily a bad idea in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top